WAR SEASON II: Discussion

[Neo Emolga]

@Felly - Nah, it's fine. Just a few things though.

There was talk to do away with the WAR and replace it with something else that feels uniquely different, but still incorporates a "something for everybody" kind of setup where writing, art, battling, and so on all contributes toward the event. But this kind of feedback helps when it comes to designing such a thing.

• Extend the weeks of WAR to 2 weeks instead of just one.

Yeah, I can back this one up. Things wouldn't feel as frantic and there would be bigger grace periods so that people could take their time and/or take part in sections they normally would have given lower priority. Instead of four weeks, we could make it something like six weeks, but have three rounds of submissions and judging.

• Judging Panels

This might be a possibility, but only if we had a bigger community and more judges. If you look at the judge application thread, we only had just enough to get by. But even if we had enough, I think two judges from different teams would make sense and would probably be enough. Three judges would be hard because now, in order to work out scores, everyone would have to be online at the same time to discuss. That's the tricky part.

• Not giving points to two people of the same team

I kind of need to disagree with this one. Using the Olympics as a model, it's possible for two people from the same country to get a medal for the same event.

First point I'd like to make is if you put this into action, if someone from one team makes a really stellar entry, it pretty much says buzz off to anyone of intermediate or beginner skill from taking part in the same section, and thus, kind of makes it an elitist event where even the newbies won't be considered. We definitely don't want that.

Second, you could have three great submissions from people all in Team A. Barely anyone else takes part except for Team B, which only has one trashy submission, and Team C, which only has trashy submission. Should those trashy submissions really get the points just because Team A already got their points? Doesn't seem right in my opinion. Also, it might cause people to start thinking "oh, only two teams are taking part, let me quickly slap something together just so I get the last point!" Points should go to the team that put forward the best effort, not the ones that found loopholes in the system...

Third, if you find the 40.5 gap "disgusting and appalling," well, the teams on the lower end of that gap probably either needed more members and/or needed to have more members taking part. We might be able to fix that if something like a member ceiling is put into place so teams are kind of evened out a little better (it'll probably never be a perfect balance, but it'll be closer. Still, if Team B simply just doesn't take part as much as Team A, should they really both have the same kind of score at the end of the day? Again, I think the target should be trying to find ways to balance teams to some degree so points and awards are still earned through great effort and hard work.

I think I'd be open to a member draft in the future, but only if all the teams that are involved are voted on and definitely show care and quality to their creation. The last thing anyone would want is to be drafted into a weird and awkward team that no one but the leader themselves likes. As for the way the draft is handled, I'd probably model a system like that based on the NFL draft, but beginning draft order would probably have to be randomized for that scenario. With six teams, there's a good chance they'll all get a good share of decent ones.